familypediawikiaorg-20200214-history
Familypedia:Watercooler
(For older or rapidly-dating contributions to this page, please see Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 1 and Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 and/or specifically-named pages (linked from paragraphs here) (Please note that the Watercooler is '''not a Help page' except perhaps incidentally. The best "Help" pages are found by hitting the "Help" links.) ---- Creating entries See and Genealogy:People Template. Mailing list The mailing list for this Wiki is Genealogy-l and is at: http://www.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/genealogy-l User:IFaqeer—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:19, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT) Babel templates, showing languages understood by contributors Some of us have coloured boxes on our User pages indicating which languages we have any working knowledge of. See Genealogy:Babel templates and its discussion page. List of contributors Because of the wikicities structure, there seems to be no easy way to list those who contribute to this wikicity. Or have I missed something? Unless there's a better place, how about Genealogy:Contributors? Robin Patterson 23:34, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'There is now a special page for this . It isn't as detailed as Genealogy:Contributors, but is updated automatically Bill 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Administrators Anyone who would like to be given the extra facility that goes with being a sysop or bureaucrat may edit Genealogy:Requests for adminship. Dealing with spam Most of our responsible contributors look at the list of Recent Changes. Spam is removed when seen. And, as noted in a recent message from Angela, it should then be reported at http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Spam_Blacklist. Robin Patterson 00:33, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) Please login whenever practicable, because that makes less work for those of us who check the recent changes for spam. Robin Patterson 22:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC) Submission to Cyndi's List I've applied to have this site listed on Cyndi's List with the other quarter million! See the entry on the August 16, 2005, page of http://www.cyndislist.com/new0805.htm Robin Patterson Our very own Wikia Tour Do a brief guided tour as part of the Wikia tour system. Then you can suggest pages that we should add to it. --Robin Patterson 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) GEDCOM conversion Weary of manually converting my html pages into pages for this site, I have taken an easier, if somewhat less elegant solution of writing a program. ... (see Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 ) ... Yewenyi 11:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) (''See '') Multipurpose names, such as "Adam" (see Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 ) '''See (and please continue discussion on) separate new page Genealogy talk:page names. Robin Patterson 00:27, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC) A Better way? An extensive discussion of ways to simplify data input was carried out by various parties beginning in January of 2006. Ultimately this led to the creation of a "Create a Page" link on the sidebar that takes people to a page where they can select from various templates for the creation of "People Articles". To simplify the watercooler (getting hard to see the trees for the forest) most of that discussion has been transferred to a subpage . (see also Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 ) WYSIWYG During recent weeks I've had several different users, with differing skill levels, but all reasonably computer literate, testing our the Genealogy Wiki through the Wigton Walker Portal. While the response has been favorable, there several of the testers commented that it required a great deal of effort to get up to speed, so that the system could be used effectively. One tester commented that it was like "Looking down a rabbit hole" by which she meant that the Wikia system is definitely not WYSIWYG---and that requirement for WYSIWYG is, I think, a common denominator among potential users. The editing bar would seem to be a great improvement, but the formating needs to be made much more transparent to meet the average users needs. This unfullfilled requirement may explain the low "residence time" for people using the site---most registered users leave within a day of trying out the site. Bill 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :We're working on it! (Bill and I write long emails to one another.) But the WYSIWYG era is over: now you have to ask if you want to be sure WYSIWYG - or (even in old Word 6) you may get Normal View or Outline View or Master Document View. This site may be initially too simple for some people!!! Just click on "Edit", then type, then click "Save". (A neighbour of mine wanted to add a Word document to the Cities: wikia; had no end of trouble after he thought he would use his computer knowledge and use the Upload button, and didn't think hard about the response he got. When I said "Try Paste" all was well.) Robin Patterson 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Template, etc, proposals Places template Please visit my User page for a proposal for a town and city template ("Genealogy:Place") in G-Wiki, arising from my recent conversation with Robin Patterson. If this was an article, rather than a template, I'd "be bold" and simply create it, but I'm deferring to older Wikipedians and other frequent editors here. Thanks in advance for your input! Nhprman 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :I think the Place template will be very helpful. Among other uses, I can imagine a wiki-style community-maintained equivalent of Cyndi's list for place-specific resources. One suggestion: make it very clear in the template that page names should be complete. I don't know how many times I've been reading through other people's genealogy records and found references to places such as "Newport, Lincoln". Um, what state? What country? --TomChatt 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ::Tom, I agree up to a point; but don't overdo it. We don't need "Handsworth, Birmingham, West Midlands, England, United Kingdom, Europe". If in doubt, I'd use the Wikipedia pagename. (By the way, does "" have any advantage over ""?) Robin Patterson 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Now (since 5 months ago actually) we have Genealogy:Place Template, so please '''go there', improve it, and use its talk page ad lib. Robin Patterson 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Place categories How about setting up places as categories, under which Family Name categories can be connected as subcategories, with the people entries that fit there connected? See Category:Grafschaft-Bentheim, Prussia for an example of this. -Briantice 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) :Brian, I'm sorry I missed a few days. We already have Category:Places. Please integrate with your excellent additional place categories! (If there has been some duplication, we can work it out.) Robin Patterson 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Rodovid.org I am interested in what you are doing here, but thought you might be interested in Rodovid.org another family tree wiki, which has automatic tree generation and GEDCOM import. It is also trying to become a wikimedia project. You comments on this project would be greatly appreciated. --172.214.9.154 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC), (User:Bjwebb on Wikipedia, Meta and Rodovid) Hi again. I noticed I recieved no reply. Rodovid would be interested in merging with the site you have here, what do you think?--172.200.178.107 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :WOW! I'm really impressed! I haven't been here in a while due to limited time, but having a form like that to enter information would be a dream! Robin, check it out if you haven't already. I really think Wikia should jump on this before Wikimedia does. Chadlupkes 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :Merging Rodovid with this site could be quite interesting. As I've been starting to work with this site, I realize that it provides half of what I've been missing. A wiki like this is a perfect forum for the collaborative work of genealogy, but what's missing here is the benefit of structured data, such as can be used to automatically generate a variety of useful charts (descendants, ancestor trees, ahnentafels, etc). A combination of the structured data (editable by everyone, with revision history, talk pages, etc) like Rodovid has plus the free-form narrative offered here would be a winner combo. -- TomChatt 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Records, Repositories, and things other than Persons Is this site only intended to have pages for specific Persons using the Person template, or is it appropriate to create other related pages? One thing I'm thinking of is a source record, especially of the sort not publicly available, for example a personal letter or diary written by an ancestor. I'd like to have a separate page where I can put a transcript, image scan, and other info relating to such a source. What would be the appropriate way to name such a page? Some possibilities: * Diary of Joseph Bloggs (1812-1888) * Joseph Bloggs (1812-1888) (diary) * Joseph Bloggs (1812-1888) / Diary * Record:Joseph Bloggs (1812-1888) / Diary I'm new to this Wiki thing, so I'm not familiar enough with whatever protocols (as well as technical ramifications) there may be concerning namespaces, use of parenthesis, use of other special characters like '/', etc. in page names. Also, I don't know how this fits in with any intended ontology for this wiki. I notice there's been a "Place" template introduced, which is a good thing. There are a number of other entities that may be relevant (I'm thinking of the GENTECH data model as a guide.) Another useful entity might be "Repository", for example, "Records of the New Amsterdam Dutch Church", a page which describes what sort of records are available, where they're available, what condition they're in, any special notes on interpretation, etc. The source citations on Person pages could refer to Repository pages and save having to repeat a bunch of common information. -- TomChatt 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ::A slash in a page name creates a subpage. Has its uses. Try one. Round brackets are no problem - just another character. Repository pages are a great idea - go for them! Robin Patterson 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Note about names and birth/death dates Can I just leave a brief note here about naming articles about people? It would be wise, when naming, to use birth/death dates, when known. "John Brown" as an article name, for instance, is a problem, since it could be any one of hundreds of John Browns. However, John Brown (1854-1903) narrows the pool considerably, lessons confusion, and makes it easier to browse. - Nhprman 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) :I think that's a good convention to follow. But I wonder what to do about forward refs to articles that don't exist yet, especially when you may not know birth-death years yet. Suppose I'm doing "Joseph Bloggs (1831-1896)" and that article makes reference to his father James Bloggs, about whom I don't know anything yet other than his name (e.g., I had some "Joseph, son of James" ref). In writing the Joseph article, should I (a) not make James a link, (b) link to "James Bloggs", © link to "James Bloggs (?-?)". If we do (b) or ©, how much does the Wiki software automatically help us out? I notice on Wikipedia that if you look for an article by some name, and they have several articles with the same name, differentiated by parentheticals, you get a "disambiguation page". Does that happen automagically when several articles have the same name not counting the parentheses? Or do those have to be manually crafted and maintained? (This is the sort of thing we should work out ahead of time, before the project really scales up and the trees actually start to connect!) TomChatt 07:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::I think it's manual at present, but see below. And no harm in putting a John Doe link in at any time, with or without "(?-?)". Robin Patterson 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Disambiguation Now that several contributors have touched on aspects of disambiguation, it's great that one of the new ones has made a positive move to deal with it. Please see Template talk:Disambiguation and let's carry on that discussion there. Robin Patterson 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Admin Just made Nhprman and Robin Patterson Admins. Sorry about the delay. Please welcome them in their new roles. Roles that they, in large part, will help define--with the rest of us nudging them all the way. I know they will help make the Wiki much bigger and better. Your no-longer-lonely-Admin and Founder, --IFaqeer 09:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Portals I'd like to set up a Portal for Walker researchers, similar to that used on the Wikipedia. I checked the Wikipedia for guidance on setting one up. Found their Portal construction guidance page, but I'm not sure that this will work away from the Wikipedia. Guidance requested. Bill (date?) (See Genealogy talk:Portals for response and later discussion.) Ive created a defacto portal, similar to that of the box-skeleton recommended on Wikipedia, but didn't import the templates. Looked to be faster just to create similar versions without actually importing the templates. When time permits I'll go back in and work on the box-skeleton aspects---they do look better. Eventually I suspect we will be devloping a system of portals and subportals to help with general navigation on this wiki. Also working to fix problems with categories in the Wigotn Walker pages. Haven't quite got a picture in my mind of how to make that work for us. Getting there though. Bill 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC) MediaWiki ToolBar I notice that the MediaWiki ToolBar is now missing from the pages I'm editing. Thought at first it was something lost because of a change in my preferences, but I don't see anything immediately that suggests this. While you can always use HTML coding in the editings, the ToolBar was a convenient tool. Is its absence related to the recent update (7 July) and related to the fact that the old version of the toolbar is not supported any more? Can we get the toolbar back. User talk:WMWillis (date?) :Still working for me (using Cologne Blue skin as I do everywhere in MediaWiki if possible). Not that I remember to use the toolbar often: still type tildes, dashes, brackets, and apostrophes in gay profusion as one did before the toolbar was invented. Still not working for you? Robin Patterson 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ::Still not working. I'll recheck preferences and see if someting has changed. There's a check box for ToolBar, but doesn't seem to have any effect. Maybe its something at this end. Thnx ::I checked a few things. I get the same problem with other Wikia sites, but not with Wikipedia. The problem is not with turning JavaScript on, or by setting the preferences (ie, I haven't turn off the tool bar in the preferences.) A suggestion on the live chat site was that this might be related to a recent upgrade that wasn't optimized for the browser I'm using (Safari). Suspect that's the problem. I don't really want to try to bring back IE on my system. I may be able to check this with Netscape Navigator. But I suspect this is the problem, and the fix needed is likely to be Wikia wide. User talk:WMWillis 24 August, 1:51 PM, EST. ::I checked this out a month back---this is indeed a browser issue. EditBar doesn't work properly with Safari, but does work with FireFox. I reported that thru "bug central", but got no response, and problem persists. Oh well, I don't really need the EditBar, and I suspect less than 5% of the potential users would be using Safari. Bill 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Requests for deletion? Oops, I tried to use the Template:delete to request an incorrect category name and I found out it doesn't exist on this wiki. Is there another method in place yet to do that? — MrDolomite | Talk 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) :For a wrong category, a better solution than deleting is to use the "category redirect", in case another person creates the wrong category again. See Template:category redirect. Robin Patterson 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Special Page: Category (See project talk:categories. Potential for good - or trainwrecks? (This followed straight on from the "categories" discussion that has been moved.) More good suggestions. Its clear from browsing the Wikipedia that there are a substantial number of schemes suitable for dealing with a large number of articles. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia system. I've been looking it over for perhaps 6 months, and saw its obvious applicability to doing genealogy---then found (as others have done before for the same reasons) this site. I think there's great potential here, but here's also a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of underlying implementation. The category problem is only a small component of that. Doesn't much matter to me how the problems get fixed, as long as they get fixed. Its more a matter of somone in a position takeing on the task (essential an Admin). Robin can't do all of that by himself. As you point out, there's a potential trainwreck in some of these problem areas, waiting to happen. Let me explain my perspective on this. *There are roughly 4K worth of articles on this site. Most of them were input using an automated GEDCOM program, and probably represent 20% of someone's personal ancestry---(all those ancestors whose given names began from roughly A to D (or something)). They were obviously dumping articles in right and left, and then for some reason, quit. That was almost a year ago. Nothing much has happened since. Even the site statistics are not being updated. I'm curious why to all of the above. ::Yewenyi's upload system is available for others. Robin Patterson 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::I'm sure. If you want to be in the business of GEDCOM dumps, it will probably do the job nicely. (I presume a dump would come out in the "standard" template format---definitely not a broadly accepted format in the industry. If you want that non-industry standard format, there you go.) However, my point was, after dumping in a few thousand entries, that process stopped. That's why the list of site articles is top heavy for people whose first names begin with 'A' through 'D' or something. Yewenyi apparently got through some portion of his alphbetized list of ancestors, and decided it wasn't worth his time to do it anymore---least wise, he didn't complete the task. Why? ::::Well, I've asked on his user-page, which is our only contact. He may be indisposed or worse. We may never know. Anyway, his system still had some flaws, he said; but any of you who are interested should take a look. (I doubt if it's restricted to a particular entry template.) Robin Patterson 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :::::At some point I'm going to need to look at that system closely. However, I suspect the reason for his absence is fairly obvious. Look at the date and context of his last edit...that is likely to be the undelrying reason for him going elsewhere. There is an additional component as well, another interaction occurring about the same time, that may also be part of the reason.Bill 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) *By comparison, the Wikipedia has something like 1.4 million articles as of today. *By comparison, Ancestry.com has the equivlalent of over 14 Million articles. They are the most successful online genealogy system going, though their approach has severe limitations. (Limitations which this site can overcome, if it chooses). *If this site really has in mind meeting its stated mission objective of getting lineages for everyone on the world into its database, it would have lineages for 6.6 Billion people---just counting people alive today. That's going to be a moderately hefty database. As you said, a trainwreck waiting to happen. Bill 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Special page: MiniUpload *An item has appeared in the Special page category at http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Special:MiniUpload *It does not have the usual page layout for the Wiki, and in particular has no trace on the page history---so you don't know who loaded it, or when it was loaded. Can anyone identify the origin of this file? Since use of this page involves access to an end-user's hard drive, I'd thnk we'd want to know what its history was.Bill 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) **Hmm, this is the best I found about it so far http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/muppet-l/2006-August/000000.html. It looks like it is on all wikia:Special:Specialpages sites, not just here. — MrDolomite | Talk 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::Doesn't look more dangerous than the normal upload page, but I've asked at Central Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:MiniUpload --Robin Patterson 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :::I'm a conservative soul. When I find something that doesn't fit the pattern (in this case, no history), I like to know why. I also get nervous when things access my hard drive, as that could be a vehicle for doing things I wouldn't want done. I especially get nervous when those things don't fit the pattern I expect. I didn't see anything obvious when I looked at the underlying source material for the page, but I don't consider myself a programmer, and would rather have a professional grade opinion on something like this. Appreciate your checking on it.Bill 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Captcha Comment moved to wikia:Forum:Spam hurdle too much — MrDolomite | Talk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Hey, I don't mind having the extra screen pop up when the edit has external links. If it helps stop vandalspam, I am for it. But, when the question popped up, it removed my edit summary without telling me. Can this be changed not to wipe that out. I would hate to solve one problem but then create another. :) — MrDolomite | Talk 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::Is this related to the MiniUpload question, or is it a different problem. If it's different could you point me to where you are seeing thisBill 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :::Nope, different question. It happened when I was making an edit which included an external link, like this http://www.google.com http://www.google.com — MrDolomite | Talk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Thanks. That helps clear that up. Seems like there should be a history on the item if it appears under Genealogy, but apparently not. By the way, I noticed your input system for adding a comment on your user page. Nice approach. I imagine its used elsewhere as well. At anyrate, I found it useful enough to copy the technique for another purpose. Thanks for that too.Bill 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Test Portal I've created a Test Portal designed to provide guidance for people coming to the site, and trying to figure out how it works. I've included, in addition to a welcome message, items dealing with: * Finding Things on the Wiki * Editing Articles * Creating Articles * Login and Registration * Other Things You'd Like to Know This is intended simply to test out some ideas. If it makes sense, we may want to consider including a link to this page on the sites "Main Page". Somethings to mention: * The "icon" used to illustrate the page is from the Wikipedia. We might want to consider using this or a similar graphic to replace the "Wikia" icon in the sidebar. I like this one mostly because a) its colorful, b) it has genealogic implications, and c) carries through on the idea of a world community bound by kinship relations. * I've drawn a few items out of the Watercooler, such as the link to subscribing to the largely unused email list. I believe there are other ideas that have enough general utility that they might be highlighted here. * Some items, such as "administrators", are included only as stubs to be filled in. All is subject to revision, of course. The main purpose of the portal is to provide a place where basic information is provided that people need to navigate and work on the Wiki. Tell me what you think. Bill 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) LostCousins - another freebie LostCousins.com is offering all of its services free this weekend. See detail on its page. Robin Patterson 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Some Useful Things Over the past several months I've been working to develop some standardized formats for use in creating "person articles". These are mostly based on HTML layouts that can be readily adapted to a variety of contexts. This effort is directed toward a long term goal of making data entry a bit simpler, with less duplicaiton. That will eventually require the use of PHP programming extensions written specifically for this web site. That effort will require a certain degree of standardization so that the program can recognize information like YOB, and transfer it to other pages where it might be needed, such as an entry on a child's page identifying their parents name. The current effort is useful by itself, but is intended more as an exploration of how things might be laid out to facilitate the PHP programming effort. In this area a number of items have been created that can be used as templates. These include *a) a family tree layout to show Ancestral relations quickly *b) a "Vita Box", providing basic vital statistics for the person *c) a child list that provides basic information about the children of a marriage, including DOB, POB, Spouse, etc. Other items being worked on include a) Templates for US Census data entry b) a Timeline construct that allows you to place information about a couple in its historical context. (The focus here is on US history, but the basic timeline could be used for other geographies These templates are "a work in progress" (isn't all genealogy?). They can be examined, in whatever state they are in, on subpages of my user page, but I will be adding links to specific examples over the next few days.Bill 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) :Sounds like good work! My only concern/input would be to keep in mind the strengths and requirements of a Wiki format (cross-linking; categorization; and so on) and make sure that any automation takes advantage of and build on them, etc. I haven't been able to contribute much lately, but one of my original priorities in helping set this site up was that our formats and standards don't become too tied to one type of family structure or genealogical thinking or study. For example, in the Middle East and Arab or Muslim world, a "shajra" is often identified by a simple "x son of y son of ..." (like in the Bible) and I wanted pages on people from that part of the world to actually have that kind of list--or at least the possibility of including that kind of format. It would help capture the information that we don't have formally included in Genealogical databases today. And there's masses of it out there. :--IFaqeer 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ::Good to see you contributing when you have time, IFaqeer! (Now what about that revered grandfather of yours - any chance of having him on site?) Back to main subject: I think Bill's doing a great job adding to the layout and entry options (and he said "there's no reason someone has to use the same template all the time") while I keep the categories working and encourage linking. Robin Patterson 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ::One of the things that's a real advantage with the Genealogy Wiki (as opposed, say to the approach taken by Rodovid) is the fexibility this format permits. Not everyone has the same genealogy interests, and concerns. Things that I find essential, many others find irrelevant. Things I find un-needful, are absolutely essential to others. Hence, having an environment where you can pretty much do what you will (within reason, of course) is very useful. I might also add that every article has its own needs and drivers---its a pleasure to be able to create different articles in ways that actually meet the needs of the particular subject at hand, rather than conforming to someone else' organizational ideas. ::The components that I'm developing may never be of much use to anyone but me, or other's might find them handy. Still, they are components that can be mixed and matched to meet the particular need at hand of a particular article. They are also evolving. Eventually, I may try for a program component that could be triggered that would allow cross connectivity between articles. That doesn't necessarily mean that it would be something that would be mandatory for all users....rather something that could be used if one chose to avail themself of the capability.Bill 00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Vita Box Here's the layout for a Vita Box that could be used to record basic Genealogical information about a person. Note that the individual cells will (of course) expand to accomodate the information inserted---ie the sizes shown here are not necessarily what you'd get if you filled in the information. The "Commentary" box is intended to provide information about the source used for the particular datum. This is a particular interest of mine---ie, explaining how you "know what you know". One of th main criticisms that can be leveled at genealogists is that they tend to say "This is so" without being able to explain why they think "this is so". As a result, much of the genealogy we find in places like Ancestry is wrong at worst, and unreliable at best. Highlighting this in the Vita Box, is intended to serve as a reminder that you need to explain how you know something. A criticism that I have of Ancestry and most genealogy programs I've seen is that they generally fail to emphasize this need for sources. Standing down from soap-box.Bill 02:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Entry Source/Basis/Commentary DOB: POB: DOD: Datum<---> POD: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> Burial: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> Spouse: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> DOM: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> POM: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> Father: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Datum<---> Mother: Entry<---> Cmnt<---> Bill 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ChildList Here's a box layout for a child list. It's set up for five children by a single spouse, but additional children (or fewer) can be added easily enough, and separate tables could be made for different spouses. Again, the cells expand dynamically to provide however much space is required. Name DOB POB DOD POD DOM POM Spouse Notes Can be done largely with wiki table syntax, which has the same structure but shorter "tags". See and Template talk:Pretty newprogressive. Families - categories or namespace? WeRelate.org now has a special "Family" namespace. I'm not sure how it relates to other namespaces but it seems to have at least some potential for automation. We could do that too. Or we could use categories. Either way could be susceptible to some of the programming automation that Bill and others are hoping will develop here. Any thoughts? Robin Patterson 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) HI Robin, Thanks for poiinting this out. Hadn't run across WeRelate previously. There's a certain similarity here with the way Rodovid handles user input---that is, they use html forms to accept data. I've not seen that on this wiki, and suspect that's a feature that has not been enabled on Wikia---I'm sure forms are running in the background to accept information like this message, but I suspect we can't create pages with forms per se.Bill 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) :Possible merge with WeRelate is being discussed at http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#WeRelate.--172.202.122.127 10:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Siglos/Centuries Does anyone knows which is the policy regarding Centuries? For example, in wikipedia Spanish Siglo XX (20th Century) is used. Which should be the format here, both, in Spanish and in English. Thanks--Tasc 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC). :See Category:20th century. Maybe we can use category:Siglo XX as well, with links from one to the other. Robin Patterson 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) ::Thank you Robin. I'll try it. --Tasc 16:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Finally I think I found a solution. The solution it is not the redirection from Siglo X to Category:10th Century, since it would redirect to a category instead of a date. The best way, I think, is to redirect the Centuries and Siglos to its respective pages in wikipedia:en and wikipedia:es, which have a lot of information regarding dates. That is (taken as example the 10th Century): *Siglo X and *10th Century It is a little cumbersome, but it works well. Regards and Happy New year 2007 to everyone. --Tasc 16:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC) :No, please don't redirect to Wikipedia unless essential - readers will never find our English-language page (and may even never find their way back here!). :Just simplify what you were talking about, above, by cutting out the category part, so: ::#REDIRECT 20th century :However, you may be better still to leave "Siglo X" and its companions as Spanish-language pages (on which you can write full Spanish articles about what was important in Spanish-language genealogy in those years) but give them links at the top to English and other languages. :I think the Wikia people are working on ways of having interwikis here just as Wikipedia does; maybe that will be even better if it works. :I should copy some of this discussion to a specific page; maybe project:Languages. :Robin Patterson 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Time for enticing some experts in from Central Wikia? With our recent activity, which has shown some of you how ignorant I am about some technical matters such as footnotes and text boxes, I propose that we add ourselves to the list of potential candidates for "Collaboration of the month" on Central Wikia so as to get a bit of a look from keen Wikians who may happen to know how to do some of the things Bill and I want done (and maybe some of what Tasc wants, although he discovers most things soon after asking!!!). It will need a bit of a promotional paragraph, which I may start if I have time. Then it will need votes; four might be enough, but more would help, preferably before 1 December. Robin Patterson 06:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :I'll be happy to help with that, when I return this weekend. Bill 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :I'll be happy to collaborate too, if I can be of any help.--Tasc 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Right-oh, folks, voting at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Collaboration_of_the_month/vote#Genealogy and see if you can improve the pulling-power of my advertisement on http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Collaboration_of_the_month Robin Patterson 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :I looked at the Collab page, and a note at the top says that all of the current proposals are deficient in not describing specific tasks that need done. We should try to rectify that for ours. What specifically do we want the larger Wikia community to do? Merely to come here and add more ancestor pages? Or are there specific tasks that we need some wiki expertise for? I think that there are. I like the direction Bill is going in, and I'd love to see some more structured input along the lines of Rodovid or WeRelate. I like the flexibility here, but the major deficiency I see is the need to duplicate information on multiple pages. If we could have structured data about family relationships that could be incorporated in a flexible way, that would be ideal. If this wikia decides it wants to go in that direction, that's certainly an area where we could use some wiki-expertise consulting. What do others think? TomChatt 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :I'd like to carry on this discussion in a slightly different setting66.32.17.82 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)further explanation to follow in a different format. 66.32.17.82 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC). Bill has added some really good detail to the statement of what sort of collaboration we would like. Convinced me!! Robin Patterson 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) We seem to have succeeded. Five and a half votes, with the nearest contender just three votes. I've noted accordingly on the Vote/Talk page. So Bill and others can sharpen up the questions and prepare for a visit from a couple of "experts". (OK, a dozen experts might be better, but the Collaboration doesn't always bring floods of visitors!) Robin Patterson 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :I'd be happy with one who came armed with a working knowledge of PHP and developing extensions. Bill 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Walker Data Port When I first started working on the Wiki I indicated to Robin that one of the things I had in mind was creating a data port collecting information/records for use in collaborative research efforts. We've done a little of that kind of thing, incorporating information into person articles, but so far we've been more involved in entering basic information, and figuring out what works best in the way of article organization, and identifying areas where we needed to improve functionality. Within the last month or so information has come together in an off-wiki context, where folks are trying to piece together from scattered data sets information needed to solve some critical problems in Wigton Walker genealogy. I've been inserting some of that into the wiki as we went along, but some have observed that we need a more formal strucuture for this kind of data....ie, an obvious single place that we can go and dump data to fuel our mutual collaboration.---somewhere other than person articles. What I have in mind is setting up a "Walker Data Port" to collect records (non-lineage information) about persons whose surname was Walker. Since this is being driven primarily by Wigton Walker researchers, and to some extent by WalkerShortList researchers, the focus at the moment is likely to be fairly narrow, but I'm looking at structures that are expandable (scalable in computer geek terms) so that a wider focus is possible, given interest. Right now, the organization I'm looking at is: *Surname **Geography ***Data Category Bill 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Own logo? Image:Wiki.png|Wikia's default logo Image:Genealogy-Wiki2.png|some random book icon Image:Genealogy-Wiki3.png|very simple, just playing with letters Image:Geneaology-Wiki.png|… a bit stuffed with text, hm http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/4/4e/TreeOfKnowledge_v2.png Hi all, I've just stopped by and found some very committed users on this wiki :-) So I've looked around a bit. There's already much very good content, but aaaaaah, still Wikia's default logo ;-) Have you ever thought about creating an own logo for the project? Above are some quick'n'dirty attempts. Please regard them as minimal creative input for such a discussion only, not as final versions. Any ideas? Other motifs, colours, else? --rieke 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC) :PS: After the above entry, I've found Garrett's suggestion on Talk:Main Page from 2005. See the "Wikipedia tree" on the right. --rieke 20:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) :Hi Reike. I'm assuming you are looking at this Wiki as part of the collaboration effort....either way, we welcome your input. :On the logo, Yes, that's been considered---but we have a whole shopping list of problems that need attention. I agree, it would be good to have a more distinctive logo. I'm sure its easily changed. You've noticed the Celtic circle, since you added a better description in the image file---That's been used on several pages related to site administration---its a potential candidate for use as a logo. Its main advantage are (not necessarily in order) a) its colorful, b) its free, c) its reasonably appropriate given the founder's perspective on what this site is about, and d) its distinctive. It may be that this or another logo yet to be suggested will eventually be substituted for the Wikia logo. This is something that I recognized early on, but given the many other needs more fundamental, its not something I've pushed to have changed. Right now I'm filling in blanks, and adjusting things to make them work better, but the real need is improvement in basic functionality of this wiki. :In most wikia sites links between articles are commonplace; that's helpful, but not particularly fundamental to the function of the site---articles can be linked or not linked. If they are, there's some added utiity as people can easily pursue other facets touched on by the article. But linking the articles is not a fundamental requirement. Here, linkage of articles is a fundamental requirement--parent pages are linked to child pages, and child pages to grandchild pages, and so on down through the generations. In addition, because you have links to spousal families at each generation, you end up with a very complex set of interlinked articles---very web like. :That creates certan problems for this wiki. In particular, information from one article is going to appear on a good many other articles. For example, a father's page would include a child list---that child list will probably have the Dates of Birth, Death, Spouses, and perhaps other information. That same information has to be entered onto the childs own page, and it needs to be the same data in both places. And when the data changes (yes, it does change) it has to be changed everywhere a particular datum appears.---which, depending on the family, and the datum involved, might be on a dozen or more different pages. Currently, that has to be accomplished manually...which means sometimes it gets done, and sometimes it doesn't. :There are ways around this problem. Theoretically, we know how information like that can be shared between pages. In practice, the programming underlying the wiki does not currently permit this. What we need to do is develop appropriate extensions to handle this kind of chore automatically. My understanding is that this can be done through extensions. Writing extension for the wiki requires PHP programming experience. That is not exactly a slight task, but that's the one we most need to have accomplished on this site. :Any thoughts? Bill 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Magic (This contribution has been copied to .) One of the problems we have with the mechanics of the wiki is the requirement to duplicate informaiton in vairous places---for example, when we create a person article we normally create an article for both the husband and the wife---and usually that means we need a child list in both articles---usually exactly the same child list, unless there are multiple marriages. That requires a duplication of effort; most genealogy programs handle that chore automatically---and I believe people expect that kind of facility in any genealogy site. As discussed before, we will eventually solve that problem with the development of extensions---but that's a comprehensive answer that's still a bit in the future before I will have the time to tackle it. In the meantime, for this particular child list problem, I've realized that there's a tool in the magic words kit that will do the job---though its more complicated than I'd like. the tool is This magic word inserts the entire contents of the named article into another article where the magic words appear. Thus, if I create a subpage on an article for a woman, that shows the child list, I can automatically insert that child list into both the husband's and wife's articles. Here's and example child list from one of my ancestors, Nancy Ann Wannamaugher. If you click the links to Nancy Ann, or to her husband Benjamin Givens, you'll go to their pages and see exactly the same child list. Note that iin the example below the usual edit button on the right will not take you to a point where you can edit the child list---it will take you to the part of the page containing the magic words. To get to the child list to edit it you need another link that points to the actual child list. I've embedded this in the Child list table in the upper right where it says "Edit this List". I suspect that this approach is going to be too cumbersome for most folks to make effective use of it (In theory its simple enough, in practice it requires a knowledge of HTML, and some semi complicated thinking to see how it works.) But perhaps we can figure out how to use the same trick with other components, and something that would make it simpler to use. Bill 13:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Surname Database An anonymous contributor has placed a link to a site at http://www.surnamedb.com on the Fmaily names page http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Family_name The site provides a brief thumbnail description for surnames This might be useful, except that the site apparently is far from complete---I trided a dozen different surnames (fairly common ones), and got no hits. They do provide an index to the surnames they list, though most of the names seem to be uncommon. The site looks to be primarily intended as an ad site. There's some legitimacy for directing people there from the surname page...though the site does not look extensive enough to be of great value---perhaps its growing. At anyrate, this reminds me that we might want to consider requiring folks to register in order to edit a page. that's not the way the Wikipedia handles it, but given the nature of what we are doing, knowing who makes modificaitons to an article would be part of the documentation for "how we know what we know". I've always thought in genealogy you should be an identifiable person---ie, not just a numerical code, or a "handle". This comes up here because the person adding the link did so anonymously. Hard to contact them to see what's going on with the site if its left anonymous. Bill 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)